Minnesota Republican governor Tim Pawlenty has been touted as a potential GOP candidate for president. Pawlenty's name came up quite often as a possible vice-presidential pick for John McCain in 2008.
Ex-Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, Senator John Ensign (NV) and South Carolina governor Mark Sanford have also been touted as possible GOP presidential candidates for 2012. Each one has been having their own personal difficulties of late, to say the least.
Governor Pawlenty, though he hasn't resigned his governorship, like Palin….nor been caught committing adultery with a staff member or hiking the Appalachian Trail, like Ensign and Sanford……has been making some rather interesting public comments lately.
Listen (starting at the 1:30 mark) to how Pawlenty answers the question about Obama's health care reform bill "killing grandma"….
Pawlenty…"those are not irrational concerns." Worrying about whether a new Obama-led Democratic health care reform bill will "kill grandma" is not, according to Pawlenty, "an irrational concern."
Here's what Governor Pawlenty had to say about Obama speaking to America's school children…..
Pawlenty said that showing the address….. could be disruptive and raises concerns "about the content and the motive," he said on WCCO radio early this morning. He also said that the speech is "uninvited."
…"At a minimum it's disruptive, number two, it's uninvited and number three, if people would like to hear his message they can, on a voluntary basis, go to YouTube or some other source and get it. I don't think he needs to force it upon the nation's school children," Pawlenty said at the State Fair during a brief interview with members of the media.
On the radio, Pawlenty said he understood the address would encourage school children to write to the president.
"There are going to be questions about — well, what are they are going to do with those names and is that for the purpose of a mailing list?" the governor said.
Pawlenty's most recent statements sound similar to the secessionist talk heard from Governor Rick Perry (TX)…..
"Depending on what the federal government comes out with here, asserting the 10th Amendment may be a viable option," Pawlenty said, when asked about it by a caller on a Republican Governors Association conference call. "But we don't know the details. As one of the other callers said, we can't get the President to outline what he does or doesn't support in any detail. So we'll have to see, I would have to say that it's a possibility."
Pawlenty made it clear that he and other Republican governors will be more assertive about the 10th Amendment: "I think we can see hopefully see a resurgence in claims and maybe even bring up lawsuits if need be."
Other more wild eyed Republicans have been suggesting the same thing.
The Tenth Amendment….
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Here's what Article one, section 8 of the Constitution says….
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;….
Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran's Administration have been, socialistically, providing for the general medical welfare of millions of Americans for decades. Yet, Tim Pawlenty says that Republican governors may have to resort to claiming exclusion from Obama's health care reform legislation on 10th amendment grounds.
This is reminiscent of Palin, Sanford, Gov. Jindal (LA) and others claiming they could, and would, refuse to take their portion of Obama's stimulus monies. The states took the money.
Tim Pawlenty, the alleged rising-star in the GOP, in just the last 30 days, has hitched his electoral wagon to three preposterously outrageous far-right extremist views.
Pawlenty rebuked Obama for daring to speak to school children about working hard and staying in school, claiming that school children writing letters to the president is only an opportunity for Obama to develop a scary list of names, or something.
Pawlenty says that wondering whether Obama wants to "kill grandma" is not an "irrational concern."
Pawlenty, wrongly, suggests his state, and perhaps others, will have to invoke the Tenth Amendment to fend off Obama's health care reform policies.
Republican Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty, is a proud "Schooler', Deather" and "Tenther."
What he isn't…..is presidential material.
Just consider…..Tim Pawlenty is the leading contender for the GOP presidential primary in 2012.
What does that say about today's Republican Party?
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
I don't know but polls say the Republican party has gained quite a bit of ground in recent months. Pawlenty's just capitalizing on the deep distrust Obama has nurtured in the hearts of Americans these last 8 months.
Capitalizing by spreading the lies further?
And you are incorrect…..Obama's numbers have gone down some, yes, but the identify-with-Republicans numbers are still where they were….low.
The Republican Party is breaking up…not uniting. The GOP is losing ground with Americans, not gaining it.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
Will you come out against the entire bill of rights or just the 10th amendment?
Lies like they spread about Bush in the beginning Rev? This is payback at it's worst because the ones that get f'd in the end are the American citizens.
This administration and congress could be quite possibly the most corrupt in history.
I have nothing personal against the 10th amendment…..other than it's redundancy.
States with the most conservative extremists will undoubtedly push for some official/unofficial resolution or statement rejecting Obama's authority in this or that federal policy. Just as with the stimulus "rejection", those state governors who make a showing of defiance towards this president will not be successful in stopping federal programs and will only hurt themselves politically, just as Sanford, Palin, Perry and now, Pawlenty have done.
I must say…the Republican Party is having even more difficulty adjusting to their minority status than I thought they would. They are still not past the denial phase of their 12 step to recovery program. I think acceptance of your mistakes, acknowledging your failures…..is number one or two. Long way to go.
If they did that just think how far ahead they'd be in the polling numbers, Reverend. They're leading now just sitting back and watching Obama, Pelosi and the rest hang themselves.
That's a big if.
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -James Madison
"I have nothing personal against the 10th amendment…..other than it's redundancy."
Care to explain this ?
Any other Bill Of Rights amendments you don't like ?
King,
Amazing the sound of crickets you get with Socialists when you point to a quote from Madison who apparently anticipated the arguments being made about "general welfare". Very visionary on Madison's part and very predictable misinterpretation by Socialists.
Madison's quotation, though interesting, is not found within the Constitution.
King…my statement, I don't think, needs any explanation. The 10th amendment seems redundant.
Sadly, Knozz..doesn't think America has incorporated a partially socialistic society, already. We have…..and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Rev,
You just get more and more ridiculous. This……
"Madison's quotation, though interesting, is not found within the Constitution."
Right. What would James Madison know about the Constitution ? He was only one of the people WHO WROTE IT. I'm sure the Reverend knows better what the words 'general welfare' mean, LOL.
Here's another quote from a Constitutional author for you to vainly attempt to disregard.
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government." – Thomas Jefferson.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, Rev, but the extremists here are you and the rest of your Marxist crew.
And no, the redundancy of the 10th amendment is not evident to me. Please explain.
knozz,
I love the arguments these socialists make. They say "we've partially infiltrated American society already, so we are free to go the rest of the way now." They impose no limits on themselves or their left-wing government, which is a direct slap in the face of our founding fathers, founding philosophy, and our highest law, the Constitution. They are hell bent on tearing it all down, and then they expect America to stand by idly and watch it happen.
History is one thing….the wording of the Constitution is quite another.
I know you would rather that the Founders had not included those "general welfare" words in the Constitution….but they did.
Health care is part of the "general welfare" of Americans. How could it be argued otherwise?
Our country didn't fall apart by passing Medicare…and it won't fall apart if Democrats pass a much-needed national health care program.
"Health care is part of the "general welfare" of Americans. How could it be argued otherwise? "
At the risk of ending your circular lack of logic, Madison did it above. Read it again.
Rev, I don't have a problem with the words 'general welfare' being in the Constitution. I only have a problem with the way you are twisting those words into a meaning different than the one intended by the people who wrote them. Thus, the Madison quote, and the Jefferson quote.
By your reading of 'general welfare,' the federal government would have unlimited power to do almost anything using the 'general welfare' claim. It would nullify the remainder of the Constitution, as Madison pointed out. They could steal all the private property of one person and redistribute it for the 'general welfare' of someone else. They could even force us to buy health insurance against our will. Oh wait, Obama and the Dems are already trying to do that. What if the FCC decided free speech wasn't so important anymore, that it was in the interests of the 'general welfare' of the public to have certain radio stations eliminated ? Oh wait, some Democrats are trying to do that too.
Your reading of 'general welfare' is just a pretext for tyranny. Castro, Chavez, Lenin, Stalin, Mao….they all thought they were doing things for the general welfare of their people. Our Constitution is supposed to stop those tyrants. That's why it's the government that is limited by our Constitution, and not the people.
….. and I don't have a problem with the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I just have a problem with the way those words are twisted into a meaning different than the one intended by the people who wrote them.
Point to alchemist.
And King….pray tell, what DO the words "general welfare" in the Constitution….mean?
James Madison already told you, Rev. Read it again.
alchemist,
Ah, a subject change. Okay.
While the purpose of the Second Amendment is to form a militia, it also clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If they are infringed, the purpose is already defeated. What was your complaint ?
But I have no problem with most gun control laws, such as background checks and registration. It's only gun bans that are clearly unconstitutional.
King not a subject change. I was merely mimicking what you said – "Rev, I don't have a problem with the words 'general welfare' being in the Constitution. I only have a problem with the way you are twisting those words into a meaning different than the one intended by the people who wrote them." – to show how wise you are.
On the subject change I personally and many others believe the meaning of the second amendment as written by its authors to be BECAUSE "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." – and since we no longer have a militia we do not need assault rifles and other arms clearly not used for hunting and sport in the hands of people without background checks etc. nor do we need them concealed or in classrooms or in the hands of weekend warriors or in many of the places the NRA fights to allow them. Granted that is just my interpretation. If we only knew what was in the minds of the people who wrote the words.
alchemist,
Because I didn't twist any words in the Second Amendment, your "mimicking" does not apply.
"If we only knew what was in the minds of the people who wrote the words."
Your in luck, because we DO know what the founding fathers who wrote the Second Amendment intended:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." – George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves" – Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." – Zachariah Johnson, Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" – Samuel Adams, quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." – George Washington
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." – Thomas Paine
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Any questions ?
——————————————————————————–
touchy touchy!! I did not say you twisted the words I just applied another set of words to what you said – duh. And we no longer have a militia of course some conservatives are planning to raise one at least that is what they have said – you know to secede.
That was a really lame response, alchemist. I thought you were more honest than that. I can only deduce that you are dishonest. Just admit that you could care less what the founders thought. That would be a much more honest response.
And I don't know of any conservatives who want to secede from the union. They just want to change it back into what it's supposed to be. They want to change it back from unconstitutional liberal lies and bulls**t. If you don't believe me, you are advocating for tyranny. I will NEVER do that.
OMG are you full of yourself!!
OK more to say. I have 6 guns in my house. I own them all. My Father taught me to shoot when I was 6 or so, We bred, trained and field trialed english pointers for years and years — until I was in my 50's and he passed away. I shoot sporting clays. I know about guns. That said there are guns that have no business in an average citizen's hands and there are average citizens who should not own any gun at all. I personally know someone who was shot in the eye by one of his hunting buddies, another who shot himself in the foot playing quick draw and a third who was shot in the arm screwing around. I used to be related to one of them. So quit yapping about what out forefathers thought about guns. I repeat there are guns that should not be in the average citizen's hands and there are average citizens who should not own guns!!
We can play Founding Father quotes games…or we can re-read the amendment itself…
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
No matter how you, yes, construe it, the freaking purpose clearly explained as the reason for bearing arms not being infringed upon was for the sake of a "well, regulated militia."
alchemist, of course, was correct in pointing out the double standard you have with the 2nd amendment vis-a-vis the "general welfare" phrase I mentioned.
National health care is the essence of "general welfare of the people" in the 21st century.
Obviously David Reymann, who was running for the Akron City Council and pulled his gun out and pointed it at another candidate is one of those private citizens who should never own a gun.
There are average citizens who should not drive cars, or drink beer, or raise children, too, alchemist. Should the government crack down on everyone because of those folks?
larry d. You have a point. I suppose things would be better in this country if there were no laws and everyone just did whatever they wanted to do whenever they wanted to do. Perhaps you would like to live that way but I would not. These posts were not even about gun control but about interpretation of the second amendment so who gives a sh**. I am really sick of people who only look out for themselves and what they believe and the rest of society be dam***. Everything is always about them.
When you divide folks into those "who should" and "who shouldn't" have certain rights it gets worrisome, alchemist. Once people break laws–by pointing or using weapons, drunk driving, etc.–I have no problem with punishments that include withdrawing those rights and privileges. I don't see how that's saying the country would be better without any laws.
The common thread here, and I will state it clearly and simply, is that "liberals" on the whole almost always side with less freedom and less choice as opposed to more freedom and more personal choice. Be it guns, healthcare or any other "issue" of the day.
There are but 2 exceptions to this rule: Abortion on demand and Marijuana legalization.
Modern day are, without a doubt, conformist at thier very core. They demonstrate thier unfailing willingness to let society at large (the collective) decide for all of us which is the correct route to take in our lives through legislative action.
One thing that is also clearly demonstrated in these comments is that they have an irrational trust of thier own government. No more foolish an attitude has ever been demonstrated in America than this. There is simply no way to explain why so many people can trust thier government with such fervor, having been shown no evidence that said government is capable of successfully doing ANYTHING in it's charter, other than defending this country militarily.
I would be happy to conced that the government at large had my best interests in mind and transversely that the government did an effective job simply governing…if it were true. The sad fact is that it is not true and has not been true for at least the last 100 yrs.
No, single government program runs in the black. Not one. Ever.
Disturbingly, no program that is ineffective is ever ended.
It is lunacy to suggest otherwise, as it is lunacy to have faith in said government to demonstrate effective stewardship of any of the systems within it's now bloated and expansive charter.
There are two kinds of people in this world. Collectivists and Rugged Individualists.
Guess which group the founders were in? Once the obvious answer rears it's head, ask your liberal self this; "Why am I at odds with the founding fathers?"
Saying the 10TH amendment is "redundant" to the Constitution means the same concept had already been made clear elsewhere in the Constitution. If you believe that is true, then how could the federal gov't operate in violation to the 10th amendment "unknowingly"; and they do all day long as well as with all the rest of the Bill Of Rights.
Of course who really knows what this person's (the reverend mutha) definition of "redundant" really means? It could mean the same thing as "grilled cheese" means to me. I mean if we aren't able to use the founding fathers own words to understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that THEY created, then "redundant" is impossible to define.
Yet this supposed "separation of church and state" was created by using a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church; not even in the Constitution. It actually was meant to assure the church that the First Amendment would prevent government influence over their church. Progressives twisted this into blocking religion from any areas of society that the government exerts authority i.e. monopoly government schools.
Progressives invented the "living constitution" concept so they could do whatever they want by changing the intent and definitions to allow unconstitutional actions of the government to "seem constitutional".